kiwitt

don't forget that I touched up the map. There's some red sea left in Canada that I missed but I think I filled in all the cities and province names so they don't have any tan in them.

http://i.imgur.com/OMXSj.png

I just sent you an invitation to the Accord since you are a GM now, and if you are wondering, yes, its original intention was to overthrow NATO because of Icelandic leadership.

It's repetitive, unnecessary, and I have to go out of my way to do it. Annoying.

Annoying sounds like a 2-year-old's justification ... sheesh.

That's annoying.

Then archive them like I do.

200 PM limit means pming's usefulness is extremely limited.

Not if you have used it regularly on lot's of forums

PMing is #*$%ing annoying.

And don't try to compare your spam to mine. Your went around saying "yes" in every topic. And your length thing? That's not a very good way to cut down spam. If someone wants to post something in the main thread, and there's a length requirement, most of their post will be filler.

So close to 2k!

Just thought ... stuff it ... And don't want to be seen supporting Nazism.

You changed your pic, why?

I sent a post on the open thread recommending Ship classes you might use. Unfortunately, the columns got scrambled by the text editor. I'll go back and see if I can edit the original post.

I'll also look over the aircraft types and see what might be reasonably representative of aircraft in service during the period.

In RTW, a different scale map is used for the Pacific. That almost forces the use of two different Units XML files in order to represent reasonable aircraft combat radius/ unit range in the Pacific and Europe maps.

Thanks FNP. Good Ideas

kiwitt

Since you are working on the air and sea portions of RTW, consider:

1. aircraft combat radius should match map scales
2. eliminate defensive bonus for ships operating in coastal squares
3. relook relative combat power of BB,CA,DD,SS, and L class ships

OK ... no worries

Hi kiwitt, my host is aware of this ads not showing issue. Thanks.